click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121205
20121213
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
cliff? are you expecting the economy to go over the fiscal cliff and see these taxes go high hadder and spending cuts take effect? >> my personal view is i'm still optimistic. i think the conversation has been constructive since. do we have a solution on the table yet? no. but i'm optimistic we'll get to a framework. >> why? >> there's been enough dialogue. there's been movement. everyone seems to recognize the problem. everybody realizes there has to be a revenue component, spend component, entitlement reform component. for us, the business community and all the ceos, certainty is the greatest stimulus for us. >> do you support tax rates going higher? >> me personally, as an individual, more importantly the business community, which i'm part of. we support something inclusive. if rates were higher in a videocasset vacuum, i'm not sure we'd be supportive of that. we have to make sure the consumers, those who spends a lot of the dollars, the middle class, are protected in this exercise. >> i guess the question i'm really getting at is, do you get the revenue from tax increases or fro
, going over the fiscal cliff will trigger huge hikes in the death tax. >> our wealth editor robert frank breaks it down now. >> thanks, bill. the estate tax could go up even more and become a big problem for any kind of cliff deal. let's take a look. the current tax is around 30%. only those worth $5 million or more have to file. if we go off the cliff, it will shoot to 55%. anyone with an estate with $1 million or more will have to file. that will cost many more in the estate tax. many prefer the tax is abolished. obama wants a 45% rate and $3.5 million cutoff. that's midway between today's rates and the old rate. now the problem is even some democrats are siding with republicans. they say they want to keep the current rates. so all sides here remain very far apart. this matters because wealthy families need to rewrite their wills, their charity plans. and for the country there are hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes at stake. it's also a hugely symbolic tax. the left says these estate taxes are important to curb family dynasties. and they also call it the paris hilton tax. the rig
with spending cuts later. just raise taxes on the upper income now to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. this, of course, kicks the can down the road. the republicans say no deal if spending cuts are not agreed upon, along with new revenue right now. not later. but now, the next salvo, democrats now are saying that they won't put any spending cut proposals out there, they want to first hear what cuts the republicans want first. i guess so that they can use that against them in the public forum. we'll remember the infamous granny over the cliff ad after paul ryan floated his budget. so, what is the end game here? what if john boehner doesn't blink? we now have less than three weeks before the new year. i have said it before -- i am not expecting a deal. it seems even the prospect of missed vacations for our law makers, something we already know they hold sacred, may not be enough to bring real compromise. and what about the markets? well, here's the scary part. clearly the markets are looking for a deal. look at today's nice rally. they are trading as if we will get a deal and it might only be
cliff. you'll raise some taxes, yes, that's true, you'll cut defense and some human services. this is the only way we'll have a significant bite out of this deficit. i think the market is going to like this. they say no right now, but when they see that this government is taking on the deficit in a serious way i think they will like it >> you don't think going over the cliff is armageddon? >> this is just nonsense, absolutely not. this is a bipartisan deal that was made. now both parties are trying to welch on their commitments. i think that's a mistake. >> steve, ben bernanke said today if we do go over the fiscal cliff, even if it's for a short period of time, it's going to be very costly and they do not have the tools to basically dig us out of it. do you believe if we go over the fiscal cliff it won't be as easy as the governor is suggesting? >> we're in trouble anyway this quarter and the next quarter and putting on taxes of any kind would be the wrong thing to do. sometimes the governor is a former physician, current physician, and you learn first go don't harm the pati
the fiscal cliff? >> oh, absolutely. again, there's no prospect in an agreement that doesn't involve the rates going up on the top 2% of the wealthiest. all those americans get a tax cut under the framework under the first $250,000 of their income. in some sense, it's a tax cut for all americans. it's just for people who make more than that, we're going to ask them to pay a modestly amount more. >> that's hard to understand given how much going over the fiscal cliff would hurt the economy. why is going over the fiscal cliff worth it for just this one component? if you can get the other components, why wouldn't you take that? >> good question. thanks for asking. what we're trying to do is put in place a comprehensive balance set of fiscal reforms that put us back on the path to living within our means and create room for investing to make the economy stronger, make sure we're protecting medicare for future generations, and forcing the government to use the taxpayers' resources more wisely. in that context, you have to have a significant amount of revenues. we don't see a way of doing
're doing in washington on tax and regulatory policy. in the near term, the fiscal cliff prevails. in the longer term, the fed will prevail. there's so much mistrust on stocks that i think that still can be a positive catalyst for stocks relative to traditional bonds over the next 12 months. >> i'm going to push back a little bit on that. >> i'm going to break the tie in ralph's favor. >> david, i want to push back a little bit on that. in terms of -- like, is the fed really that much of a factor these days now in terms of keeping the market afloat? >> absolutely. >> it's not losing its bang for its buck? >> it's not as powerful as it was in the fall of 2008 or even 2010, but when you consider that, u.s., long bonds, 1.5%. short-term interest rates, zero. negative on an inflation adjusted basis. the cost of capital is so low. i firmly believe in my lifetime this is the most aggressive fed easing we'll see in the last 5i years. that's what's so powerful. >> i think he just hit the ball into your court. >> i don't know how to say it anymore than that. >> i don't know how much more i
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6